Comment by shady-lady | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shady-lady | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Had they made Android a walled garden like Apple, they wouldn't have been fined....Android is free, which unequivocally is a net positive for consumers

It's unequivocally a positive if they play by the rules. They fell foul of Europe(who was protecting it's consumers).

Google's not a charity and made the choices they made to get to where they are. Making Android free ensured they quickly became relevant in the emerging mobile market without having to invest massive amounts in designing/making/manufacturing devices (alongside the risks), if doing Apple way. Or if they went the MS way and tried to sell a closed source OS to device manufacturers, those device manufacturers may instead have chosen a different, more polished OS from a company who had more experience/better reputation in that field.

> Google places some terms of use to their software and suddenly they're being "anti-competitive."

You can drop the scare quotes, it's not "anti-competitive", it's just anti-competitive.

> Google's not a charity and made the choices they made to get to where they are.

That's my point. They chose the option where everyone wins the most, especially themselves. The alternatives would have set the smartphone industry back several years as Google would struggle to make phones and phone manufactures would struggle to make a halfway-decent operating system. Google's policies are "anti-competitive" in the same sense that charging money for their operating system or enforcing copyright is "anti-competitive." In one case, you're forcing companies to pay for your product. In the other case, you're forcing the companies to follow a set of rules to use your product.

> phone manufactures would struggle to make a halfway-decent operating system

They'd have bought from one of the other mobile OS vendors(Symbian, MS) or made their own (Nokia w/Maemo). It could be argued that Google distributing Android for free(so as to ensure the continued dominance/inclusion of Google Search) did set the smartphone industry back. Who the hell wants to compete against free? Even more so when that "free" is coming from a XXX billion dollar company. Which is maybe why MS gave up on mobile OS, or Symbian no longer exists or Maemo.

> you're forcing the companies to follow a set of rules to use your product

...and Europe found those rules broke the existing law.

On Android, I can install whatever I want, replace whatever I want. Hell, I can even install another App store if I wanted.

On iOS, you can't do any of that.

How is that not infinitely more anti-competitive? Somehow licensing software to other manufacturers makes you more anti-competitive then owning the entire pipeline?

> Somehow licensing software to other manufacturers makes you more anti-competitive then owning the entire pipeline?

Yes, giving out a product for free to kill off existing competitors and prevent potential competitors from gaining a foothold is anti-competitive.

I agree that IOS is way more anti-competitive. The problem is that anti-trust laws only take effect when some lawmaker defines something as a monopoly. In the android 5 billion dollar fine case, the EU used "percent of of smartphones running an OS" or more specifically, any OS that has >50% market share because the fine goes back to 2011 when android crossed the 50% threshold in the EU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com